Satendra Singh vs Union Of India Through And Ors

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ

Heard on I.A. No. 01 of 2019, application for condonation of 13 days delay and I.A. No. 2, application for leave to appeal. For the reason stated in the applications, we find it appropriate to condone the delay and allow the said application.

The appeal has been preferred by a stranger with a petition seeking for leave to challenge the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge on 01.10.2019 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1949 of 2019.

Heard Shri R.K Gupta, the learned counsel for the Appellant, Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Assistant Solicitor General appearing for Respondents No. 1 & 2, Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Deputy Advocate General representing the State/Departmental Authorities, Shri Anand Shukla, the learned standing counsel for the Respondent No.5/Corporation and Shri Shashank Thakur, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.6, who was the Writ Petitioner.

The grievance projected herein is with regard to unauthorized running of a Petrol Pump, without disclosing the title or possession over the property in which the Petroleum materials are stored. The contention is that the Respondent No.6 herein, i.e. the Writ Petitioner was successful in getting the necessary licenses without satisfying the requirements; under which circumstance the lapses in this regard were pointed out. Ultimately, the Controller of Explosives, suspended the license which was sought to be challenged by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 1949 of 2019 before this Court. The suspension extended beyond 90 days and in the said circumstance, it was submitted by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner before the learned Single Judge that, by virtue of the statutory provision in terms of Rule 152 (b) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, the Writ Petitioner might be permitted to file a fresh petition for renewal of the license and that the matter might be closed accordingly. The said submission was recorded and the writ petition was disposed of, without entering into the merits. The Appellant herein was not a party to the writ petition. It is stated that, though the merit was not decided by the learned Single Judge, it will have a bearing with regard to course and proceedings and that there is every chance for the authority concerned to permit the Respondent No.6/Writ Petitioner to run the show, without satisfying the requirements, and hence the appeal.

When the matter is taken up for consideration today, it is brought to the notice of this Court that after passing the judgment, the Writ Petitioner had moved the competent authority by way of necessary petition/proceedings and after considering the same the license has been renewed. It is stated as valid till 31.12.2024. There is a contention for the Appellant that the renewal has not been effected properly with reference to the actual facts and figures and also the relevant provisions of law and that the Appellant intends to challenge granting of the renewal of license, as above.

In the said circumstance the learned counsel for the Appellant seeks for permission to withdraw the matter without prejudice the rights and liberties to pursue appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. It is dismissed as withdrawn.